161–170 of 179 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why I should use "unconvicted", which implies possible guilt, for people who have not even been charged with anything, but are simply imprisoned and/or tortured indefinitely?
If you don't like that word, then use a longer phrase to convey what you mean. Innocent does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure everyone involved thought the person was not innocent. This is always true of almost everyone arrested by the police: they're arrested because they're suspects. Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about. Torture is, in and of itself, a crime against humanity under international law and the laws of war. This is not a theoretica…
I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong. >Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about. Morally, you have a point. But from your mention of the 8th Amendment, it looks like you're talking legally, in which case only US citizens and people covered under relevant international agreements have…
What are so-called 'black sites' set up for then, if not to torture people who have not been charged with let alone convicted of anything (ie, are innocent)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong. >Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about. Morally, you have a point. But from your mention of the 8th Amendment, it looks like you're talking legally, in which case only US citizens and people covered under relevant international agreements have…
> I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong. What are so-called 'black sites' set up for then, if not to torture people who have not been charged with let alone convicted of anything (ie, are innocent)?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actual_innocence
>A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence
Innocent means that they didn't do anything legally wrong. Plenty of uncharged and unconvicted people have broken the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Virtually everyone seriously condoning torture believe it is effective. I think a very high number of "torture proponents" are simply in favor of hurting the "bad guys" and don't even care that there might be information to be had. Donald Trump said it best, to an arena full of cheering supporters: "If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing" In his mind, and the minds of his constituents, t…
Donald Trump and his supporters are not the individuals who ordered the torture/enhanced interrogation (T/EI). If one watches/reads General Hayden's comments on the topic, he's disgusted by any call for punitive T/EI. He begins talking about this at about 34:50. https://youtu.be/GBx-ECt6vUo?t=34m50s The discussion on the US' RDI program begins at about 30:25.
What a cute military acronym.
Speaking as someone who served in the U.S. military - this is not how a prisoner should be treated.
Well no shit; there's the Geneva convention and shit that makes practices like torture and such illegal. The US can waltz right over that though, because what is anyone going to do?
Torture is wrong; no matter who is doing it or who it is being done to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Donald Trump and his supporters are not the individuals who ordered the torture/enhanced interrogation (T/EI). If one watches/reads General Hayden's comments on the topic, he's disgusted by any call for punitive T/EI. He begins talking about this at about 34:50. https://youtu.be/GBx-ECt6vUo?t=34m50s The discussion on the US' RDI program begins at about 30:25.
T/EI ? What a cute military acronym.
This article will not change anything. By the time our day end we will have been bombarded by so much other information that it will just be one more forgotten thing. And there's so much things that are revolting that our brains are just shutting down as a self defense mechanism. Sociopaths in power don't even need to hide anymore, they know they are hidden in the noise. I mean look at Turkey : they help ISIS, they s…
The article implies that the government was totally wrong about Abu Zubaydah and, therefore, he was totally innocent But to prove that the article cites to the court memo that says the US government doesn't alleged Zubaydah was a member of al Qaeda.
But the government still alleged he ran an independent terrorist training camp that was affiliated with al Qaeda. The gov't just didn't "contend that Petitioner was a 'member' of al-Qaida in the sense of having sworn bayat (allegiance) or having otherwise satisfied any formal criteria that either Petitioner or al-Qaida may have considered necessary for inclusion in al~Qaida. Nor is the Government detaining Petitioner based on any allegation that Petitioner views himself as part of al-Qaida as a matter of subjective personal conscience, ideology, or worldview. Rather, Respondent's detention of Petitioner is based on conduct and actions that establish Petitioner was 'part of' hostile forces and 'substantially supported' those forces."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong. What are so-called 'black sites' set up for then, if not to torture people who have not been charged with let alone convicted of anything (ie, are innocent)?
That word does not mean what you think it means. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actual_innocence >A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence Innocent means that they didn't do anything legally wrong. Plenty of uncharged…
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence
One of the most sacred principles
in the American criminal justice
system, holding that a defendant
is *innocent* until proven guilty.
I can't believe anyone would bother making such a fatuous point, to which the obvious response is simply: plenty of uncharged and unconvicted (and even convicted for that matter) people have not broken the law.
Now can you answer the question you evaded in my last post:
If stating that black sites are set up specifically to detain people without charge and torture them is "misleading", according to you, please explain what you believe the purpose of black sites is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That word does not mean what you think it means. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actual_innocence >A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence Innocent means that they didn't do anything legally wrong. Plenty of uncharged…
> That word does not mean what you think it means. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is *innocent* until proven guilty. > Plenty of uncharged and unconvicted people have broken the law. I can't believe anyone would bother making such a fatuous point, to which the obvious response is simply: plent…
Which is entirely irrelevant. Your claim was that innocent simply meant not found guilty, which is incorrect. There's a "presumption" of innocence: "innocence" means they actually didn't do it, and the law assumes they're in that state until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean everyone presumed innocent is innocent.
>If stating that black sites are set up specifically to detain people without charge and torture them is "misleading", according to you, please explain what you believe the purpose of black sites is.
I didn't say that. I specifically suggested you use "unconvicted", but if you'd used "uncharged" it would be fine. The word innocent is problematic for reasons I've explained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure everyone involved thought the person was not innocent. This is always true of almost everyone arrested by the police: they're arrested because they're suspects. Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about. Torture is, in and of itself, a crime against humanity under international law and the laws of war. This is not a theoretica…
I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong. >Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about. Morally, you have a point. But from your mention of the 8th Amendment, it looks like you're talking legally, in which case only US citizens and people covered under relevant international agreements have…
"The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people.""
The restriction to US citizens isn't in the text of the constitution, which is written in the passive voice:
> "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
But a bit more digging reveals that it was explicitly banned by US law some time ago, making this discussion of its legality moot: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...